Get over your sense of entitlement that EVERYTHING need to be just the way you want it.
How is it a sense of entitlement to voice your opinion or vote with your wallet? No one's holding a gun to anyone's head. The word "entitlement" just seems to be a buzzword these days.
Crowdfunding, for one. But it is not up to me to find business models for these people. That's partly what the 'free market' is about. I'm not going to hand people business models just because they can't find one themselves; that's up to them and only them.
Why? Because people are excessively paranoid about an almost nonexistent threat? Because of some misguided rule somewhere? I believe this needs to stop.
I don't necessarily blame the employer for reporting it, since he may have had legitimate reasons for concern. I don't blame the FBI for investigating it, because they kind of have to investigate something like this once it's reported.
To abolish all those laws and still have a life worth living we need to live in a "Star Trek" world.
Simply incorrect. And I already mentioned that there are obvious differences between many of the examples you gave and copyright infringement.
As long as the world is driven by money, and the need to work and make money it will be very difficult to get rid of IP laws and other property laws.
No one is suggesting we get rid of property law entirely. The only thing suggested was that we get rid of government-enforced monopolies that impose artificial scarcity, encourage censorship, and infringe upon real property rights.
As long as the world is driven by money, people need to come up with their own business models and not use government thugs to enforce artificial scarcity.
Just like the TSA and a host of other garbage, then. I guess as long as we have all this other garbage, we should just keep eliminating more and more rights rather than trying to put a stop to the process.
Why should it be any different because you're using real people instead of fictitious characters?
What if the reader doesn't think that using fictional characters should result in someone getting punished? In that case, your question kind of becomes pointless.
If someone created a game that used your likeness wouldn't you think you should at least be asked permission to do so?
I might prefer to be asked for permission first, but I don't believe that censorship is the answer or that I should be able to stop them from arranging data in a certain way.
But the current system seems to favor corruption and tyranny. I'd rather the courts be clogged and a few 'good' laws (new laws are very rarely essential anyway) be stalled than have what we have now.
My point is that there needs to be more ways to challenge the constitutionality of a law. The current system sometimes makes it difficult or impossible to do so, and that seems utterly undesirable to me.
You have to have standing/harm in order to bring a lawsuit
Which I'm aware of, but this is exactly what makes it so difficult to challenge blatantly unconstitutional practices, and I feel it's absolutely ridiculous.
or don't like a law and seek to change it.
And if the law were to be ruled unconstitutional, then all would be well. The current system simply tends towards tyranny.
It is not an infringement on your physical / real properties rights.
Of course it is.
Fact is: you have no such rights or options in the material world. Nevertheless you feel robbed.
And I think many laws need to be changed. What of it? You pointlessly listed all those examples and assumed I agreed with all those restrictions (and you could easily find differences between many of those and copyright infringement if you thought about them for two yoctoseconds), but that's not necessarily the case.
Wow... now we get close to the point.
No, your pointless ad hominems aren't even close to the point. I feel it is arrogant for you to assume that no 'creators' want copyright abolished and that everyone who does want copyright and its ilk abolished must not be an innovator.
You simply "imagine yourself" being "deprived" of "rights" (priviledges) or "options" you would not have in the real world anyway.
I have no idea what your point is. I'm already well aware that there are laws and rules that aren't to my liking, so why go through the trouble of stating the obvious? Obviously, I think these things need to be changed.
Which is what I don't understand. Why is that necessary? Is the existence of blatantly unconstitutional practices not harm enough for them, or do they like giving the government yet another reason to keep everything secret? Oh, who am I kidding? The answer is obvious...
If the 4th was enough, we wouldn't have needed wiretapping laws. This isn't new, you're just uninformed.
This presumes that the government cares about whether or not it violates the constitution, and that simply does not seem to be so. After all, we have free speech zones, protest permits, the TSA, and a host of other nonsense that occurs quite openly. So, I'd say we "needed" wiretapping laws because the government simply decided to use newspeak to bypass the fourth amendment.
Of course with a system like this, you have the possibility of encroaching accidentally on non-terrorist privacy.
But the fact that they're even collecting all this data is the problem to me. I wouldn't mind completely demolishing the NSA.
I think it is fair to ask, "are they actually using it in the way that we fear", as opposed to simply assuming the worst.
Maybe when you're dealing with someone who is on equal ground with you. When you're dealing with someone who could easily (and probably even legally) ruin your life on a moment's notice, distrusting them by default seems to be the most rational decision to me.
but what if he's actually just another civil servant trying to do his job?
As far as I'm concerned, he's just another freedom-violating piece of trash working for the government.
I think that most government employees (like most private industry employees) are honest.
I find that comical. Or maybe not. Maybe they're completely honest, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what they're doing is good for a society that supposedly loves freedom.
Miss one of these, and you are not capable to understand how the world works.
Since many of those are ambiguous, I'd say that's not a very good metric to use. You're not capable of understanding how the world works because I said so.
Again, I think you're just trivializing actual problems to avoid taking action. The problems being discussed are, I believe, serious problems. This 'A is worse than B, so B must not be bad'-type logic is just nonsensical.
Slashdot Mirror
Get over your sense of entitlement that EVERYTHING need to be just the way you want it.
How is it a sense of entitlement to voice your opinion or vote with your wallet? No one's holding a gun to anyone's head. The word "entitlement" just seems to be a buzzword these days.
Ah, then 1 + 1 must not be 2.
Crowdfunding, for one. But it is not up to me to find business models for these people. That's partly what the 'free market' is about. I'm not going to hand people business models just because they can't find one themselves; that's up to them and only them.
In a case like that, the police shouldn't simply ignore your call.
I'm talking about this case and how it's ridiculous to investigate such a petty matter. I did not say the police should never investigate anything.
then they *have to* look into that.
Why? Because people are excessively paranoid about an almost nonexistent threat? Because of some misguided rule somewhere? I believe this needs to stop.
I don't necessarily blame the employer for reporting it, since he may have had legitimate reasons for concern. I don't blame the FBI for investigating it, because they kind of have to investigate something like this once it's reported.
Really? I blame them all.
To abolish all those laws and still have a life worth living we need to live in a "Star Trek" world.
Simply incorrect. And I already mentioned that there are obvious differences between many of the examples you gave and copyright infringement.
As long as the world is driven by money, and the need to work and make money it will be very difficult to get rid of IP laws and other property laws.
No one is suggesting we get rid of property law entirely. The only thing suggested was that we get rid of government-enforced monopolies that impose artificial scarcity, encourage censorship, and infringe upon real property rights.
As long as the world is driven by money, people need to come up with their own business models and not use government thugs to enforce artificial scarcity.
If someone was using your name to sell their product, doesn't that imply that you support or endorse their product?
Not to me.
The vast majority of people believe this, and the law revolves around what "reasonable people" would understand.
I don't think most people are "reasonable" (since it's subjective and all) at all, but even if they were, I don't think most people understand the law
Just like the TSA and a host of other garbage, then. I guess as long as we have all this other garbage, we should just keep eliminating more and more rights rather than trying to put a stop to the process.
Why should it be any different because you're using real people instead of fictitious characters?
What if the reader doesn't think that using fictional characters should result in someone getting punished? In that case, your question kind of becomes pointless.
Why not? I think this is about as nonsensical as copyright and its poisonous ilk.
If someone created a game that used your likeness wouldn't you think you should at least be asked permission to do so?
I might prefer to be asked for permission first, but I don't believe that censorship is the answer or that I should be able to stop them from arranging data in a certain way.
But the current system seems to favor corruption and tyranny. I'd rather the courts be clogged and a few 'good' laws (new laws are very rarely essential anyway) be stalled than have what we have now.
My point is that there needs to be more ways to challenge the constitutionality of a law. The current system sometimes makes it difficult or impossible to do so, and that seems utterly undesirable to me.
You have to have standing/harm in order to bring a lawsuit
Which I'm aware of, but this is exactly what makes it so difficult to challenge blatantly unconstitutional practices, and I feel it's absolutely ridiculous.
or don't like a law and seek to change it.
And if the law were to be ruled unconstitutional, then all would be well. The current system simply tends towards tyranny.
It is not an infringement on your physical / real properties rights.
Of course it is.
Fact is: you have no such rights or options in the material world. Nevertheless you feel robbed.
And I think many laws need to be changed. What of it? You pointlessly listed all those examples and assumed I agreed with all those restrictions (and you could easily find differences between many of those and copyright infringement if you thought about them for two yoctoseconds), but that's not necessarily the case.
Wow ... now we get close to the point.
No, your pointless ad hominems aren't even close to the point. I feel it is arrogant for you to assume that no 'creators' want copyright abolished and that everyone who does want copyright and its ilk abolished must not be an innovator.
You simply "imagine yourself" being "deprived" of "rights" (priviledges) or "options" you would not have in the real world anyway.
I have no idea what your point is. I'm already well aware that there are laws and rules that aren't to my liking, so why go through the trouble of stating the obvious? Obviously, I think these things need to be changed.
they have a hard time showing actual harm.
Which is what I don't understand. Why is that necessary? Is the existence of blatantly unconstitutional practices not harm enough for them, or do they like giving the government yet another reason to keep everything secret? Oh, who am I kidding? The answer is obvious...
If the 4th was enough, we wouldn't have needed wiretapping laws. This isn't new, you're just uninformed.
This presumes that the government cares about whether or not it violates the constitution, and that simply does not seem to be so. After all, we have free speech zones, protest permits, the TSA, and a host of other nonsense that occurs quite openly. So, I'd say we "needed" wiretapping laws because the government simply decided to use newspeak to bypass the fourth amendment.
It's a good thing that isn't what he said nor advocated.
That wasn't directed at him, but at the attitude of the one I replied to.
is itself a way to deflect actually having to do something!
Actually, I believe that is incorrect. If you acknowledge that there is a problem, it seems as if you'd be more likely to take steps to solve it.
Of course with a system like this, you have the possibility of encroaching accidentally on non-terrorist privacy.
But the fact that they're even collecting all this data is the problem to me. I wouldn't mind completely demolishing the NSA.
I think it is fair to ask, "are they actually using it in the way that we fear", as opposed to simply assuming the worst.
Maybe when you're dealing with someone who is on equal ground with you. When you're dealing with someone who could easily (and probably even legally) ruin your life on a moment's notice, distrusting them by default seems to be the most rational decision to me.
but what if he's actually just another civil servant trying to do his job?
As far as I'm concerned, he's just another freedom-violating piece of trash working for the government.
Do we simply accept that we will have more successful terrorist attacks without this system in place?
If that's true, yes.
Or will we bitch about the government not being effective when those attacks happen again?
I didn't do that in the past and won't start now.
Then I don't think he should state it as if it's a fact.
I think that most government employees (like most private industry employees) are honest.
I find that comical. Or maybe not. Maybe they're completely honest, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what they're doing is good for a society that supposedly loves freedom.
Miss one of these, and you are not capable to understand how the world works.
Since many of those are ambiguous, I'd say that's not a very good metric to use. You're not capable of understanding how the world works because I said so.
Again, I think you're just trivializing actual problems to avoid taking action. The problems being discussed are, I believe, serious problems. This 'A is worse than B, so B must not be bad'-type logic is just nonsensical.